Philosophy & Ethics Handbook by Ullswater Community College

Year 1: A Level Philosophy & Ethics Handbook 2017/2018 Ullswater Community College

OCR A Level Religious Studies (H572) A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 1

http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/as-a-level-gce-religious-studies-h173-h573-from-2016/

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 2

OCR A Level Religious Studies (H572) You are studying Philosophy of Religion, Religious Ethics and Developments of Religious Thought and will be awarded an OCR AS Level in Religious Studies. The modules and their weightings are:

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 3

A Level Essay Feedback – Philosophy and Ethics (Student to complete the form and submit with the essay. Teacher then completes the bold boxes) Student Name:

Tutor Group:

Date Set:

Deadline

Essay Title: Targets for this task: (Remember to include the targets from your last piece of assessed work) 1.

Targets met? Yes

Partly

Yes

Partly

Yes

Partly

AO1 – Knowledge and understanding Grade

Band

14-16

11-13

8-10

5-7

1-5

Descriptor An excellent demonstration of knowledge and understanding in response to the question:  fully comprehends the demands of, and focusses on, the question throughout  excellent selection of relevant material which is skilfully used  accurate and highly detailed knowledge which demonstrates deep understanding through a complex and nuanced approach to the material used  thorough, accurate and precise use of technical terms and vocabulary in context  extensive range of scholarly views, academic approaches, and/or sources of wisdom and authority are used to demonstrate knowledge and understanding A very good demonstration of knowledge and understanding in response to the question :  focuses on the precise question throughout  very good selection of relevant material which is used appropriately  accurate, and detailed knowledge which demonstrates very good understanding through either the breadth or depth of material used  accurate and appropriate use of technical terms and subject vocabulary.  a very good range of scholarly views, academic approaches, and/or sources of wisdom and authority are used to demonstrate knowledge and understanding A good demonstration of knowledge and understanding in response to the question:  addresses the question well  good selection of relevant material, used appropriately on the whole  mostly accurate knowledge which demonstrates good understanding of the material used, which should have reasonable amounts of depth or breadth  mostly accurate and appropriate use of technical terms and subject vocabulary.  a good range of scholarly views, academic approaches, and/or sources of wisdom and authority are used to demonstrate knowledge and understanding A satisfactory demonstration of knowledge and understanding in response to the question:  generally addresses the question  mostly sound selection of mostly relevant material  some accurate knowledge which demonstrates sound understanding through the material used, which might however be lacking in depth or breadth  generally appropriate use of technical terms and subject vocabulary.  A satisfactory range of scholarly views, academic approaches, and/or sources of wisdom and authority are used to demonstrate knowledge and understanding with only partial success A basic demonstration of knowledge and understanding in response to the question:  might address the general topic rather than the question directly  limited selection of partially relevant material  some accurate, but limited, knowledge which demonstrates partial understanding  some accurate, but limited, use of technical terms and appropriate subject vocabulary.  a limited range of scholarly views, academic approaches, and/or sources of wisdom and authority are used to demonstrate knowledge and understanding with little success

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 4

AO2 – Analysis, evaluation and application Grade

Band 6 21-24

17-20

13-16

9-12

5-8

1-4

Descriptor An excellent demonstration of analysis and evaluation in response to the question:  excellent, clear and successful argument  confident and insightful critical analysis and detailed evaluation of the issue  views skilfully and clearly stated, coherently developed and justified  answers the question set precisely throughout  thorough, accurate and precise use of technical terms and vocabulary in context  extensive range of scholarly views, academic approaches and sources of wisdom and authority used to support analysis and evaluation Assessment of Extended Response: There is an excellent line of reasoning, well-developed and sustained, which is coherent, relevant and logically structured. A very good demonstration of analysis and evaluation in response to the question:  clear argument which is mostly successful  successful and clear analysis and evaluation  views very well stated, coherently developed and justified  answers the question set competently  accurate and appropriate use of technical terms and subject vocabulary.  a very good range of scholarly views, academic approaches and sources of wisdom and authority used to support analysis and evaluation Assessment of Extended Response: There is a well–developed and sustained line of reasoning which is coherent, relevant and logically structured. A good demonstration of analysis and evaluation in response to the question:  argument is generally successful and clear  generally successful analysis and evaluation  views well stated, with some development and justification  answers the question set well  mostly accurate and appropriate use of technical terms and subject vocabulary.  a good range of scholarly views, academic approaches and sources of wisdom and authority are used to support analysis and evaluation Assessment of Extended Response: There is a well–developed line of reasoning which is clear, relevant and logically structured A satisfactory demonstration of analysis and/evaluation in response to the question:  some successful argument  partially successful analysis and evaluation  views asserted but often not fully justified  mostly answers the set question  generally appropriate use of technical terms and subject vocabulary.  a satisfactory range of scholarly views, academic approaches and sources of wisdom and authority are used to support analysis and evaluation with only partial success Assessment of Extended Response: There is a line of reasoning presented which is mostly relevant and which has some structure. A basic demonstration of analysis and evaluation in response to the question:  some argument attempted, not always successful  little successful analysis and evaluation  views asserted but with little justification  only partially answers the question  some accurate, but limited, use of technical terms and appropriate subject vocabulary.  a limited range of scholarly views, academic approaches and sources of wisdom and authority to support analysis and evaluation with little success Assessment of Extended Response: There is a line of reasoning which has some relevance and which is presented with limited structure. A weak demonstration of analysis and evaluation in response to the question:  very little argument attempted

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 5

Self-Assessment: What mark would you allocate this work?

/16 +

/24 =

/40 =

What difficulties did you have completing it?

Do you think you met your previous targets?

How did you change your approach to ensure you achieved them?

Structure and organisation

AO1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Knowledge and understanding

A02 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Analysis, evaluation and application

Overall Comment:

Mark: ___________ Grade: _________ To attain a higher mark you should:

Targets for next assessed task:

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 6

Exams and Assessment This A level has now been reformed and this will be the first year it is taught with the first external exams in the summer of 2018. You will be assessed throughout the course through completing essays either in class or in mock exams.

OCR Religious Studies (H572) – 3 Exams in Summer 2019 Unit G572/01: Philosophy of Religion – Summer 2019 (TBC) You will answer 3 questions from a choice of 4. 2 hours written paper; 120 marks. Unit G572/02: Religious Ethics – Summer 2019 – (TBC) You will answer 3 extended essay questions from a choice of 4. 2 hours written paper; 120 marks. Unit G572/ 03: Developments in Religious Thought- Summer 2019 (TBC)____________________________ You will answer 3 extended essay questions from a choice of 4. 2 hours written paper; 120 marks.

Expectations for Study In Philosophy and in Ethics all your teachers have the following expectations: 1. You will arrive to every lesson with all textbooks and this handbook, with pens and other note making equipment including lined paper. 2. You will complete all homework set on time and with adequate levels of effort. If you are unable to meet a deadline you must contact the appropriate teacher at least 24 hours before the deadline by e-mail and request an extension – the teacher is under no obligation to grant an extension. Any extension is at the total discretion of the teacher. 3. All essays set for homework will be handed in with a detailed essay plan and essay feedback sheet. 4. If you miss any lessons, for whatever reason, it is your responsibility to catch up by reading the textbook, using the Portal and getting copies of class-notes and hand-outs from classmates, before the next lesson. 5. You will keep the checklists up-to-date and will make full use of any interventions and help clinics provided.

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 7

Grade Descriptions and Assessment Objectives Percentage Weighting of Assessment Objectives:

Assessment Objectives Two Assessment Objectives are being assessed in all questions: AO1 (Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of religion and belief) and AO2 (Analyse and evaluate aspects of, and approaches to, religion and belief, including their significance, influence and study). Responses are credited for AO1 for selection, detail and accuracy of the knowledge and understanding of religion and belief deployed. Responses are credited for AO2 for how well the response addresses the question, for candidates using their knowledge and understanding to draw, express and support conclusions in relation to the question posed. Candidates will be assessed on the quality of the conclusions and points they argue and the clarity and success of their argument.

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 8

Below are the descriptions the exam board gives for what Grades A, C and E look like at A Level. This means they are expecting this to be shown in your essays.

GRADE A Candidates demonstrate a comprehensive and almost totally accurate knowledge of the topics studied. They use technical language and terminology accurately in a variety of contexts throughout their work. They demonstrate a full understanding and analysis of the issues studied. They can compare, contrast and evaluate the views of scholars and schools of thought, as well as offering personal insights and independent thought. They make full and effective use of evidence to sustain an argument, anticipating and counteracting views to the contrary. They demonstrate a clear understanding of the connections between the areas they have studied and their contribution to the nature of religion and aspects of human experience. There is a maturity of approach, with sophisticated and elegant expression, construction, and quality of language, which enables them to communicate with clarity.

GRADE C Candidates recall, demonstrate and deploy a good and mainly accurate knowledge of the topics studied. They use technical language and terminology accurately in a variety of contexts in much of their work. They demonstrate some understanding with some analysis of the issues studied. They show some ability to compare, contrast and evaluate the views of scholars and schools of thought, as well as offering some personal insights and independent thought, but not consistently. They make good use of evidence to sustain an argument, sometimes anticipating and counteracting views to the contrary. They demonstrate some understanding of the connections between the areas they have studied and their contribution to the nature of religion and aspects of human experience. There is evidence of some maturity of approach, with fair expression, construction and quality of language, which enables them to communicate with some clarity.

GRADE E Candidates recall, demonstrate and deploy a limited and partially accurate knowledge of the topics studied. They use some technical language and terminology correctly in a variety of contexts in some of their work. They demonstrate a limited understanding with minimal analysis of the issues studied. They attempt to compare, contrast and evaluate the views of scholars and schools of thought, as well as offering personal insights, but often do not do so convincingly. They make some use of evidence to sustain an argument, rarely anticipating or counteracting views to the contrary, if at all. They demonstrate a very limited understanding of the connections between the areas they have studied and their contribution to the nature of religion and aspects of human experience. There is little maturity of approach, with unsophisticated expression, weak construction and poor quality of language. They communicate with little clarity most of the time

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 9

Assessment Objectives (AO1 & AO2) AO1 is worth 40% of the marks     

Subject knowledge Technical language used appropriately Evidence and examples used Facts It’s more than just reciting key information like the 5 precepts or types of euthanasia, it’s about using the RELEVANT information to answer the question. Check the wording of the question to ensure that you’re are using the information in the right place and the right way, and not just repeating a block of memorised notes without reference to what you are being asked

For full AO1 marks you must [mark scheme]:     

fully comprehends the demands of, and focusses on, the question throughout excellent selection of relevant material which is skillfully used accurate and highly detailed knowledge which demonstrates deep understanding through a complex and nuanced approach to the material used thorough, accurate and precise use of technical terms and vocabulary in context extensive range of scholarly views, academic approaches, and/or sources of wisdom and authority are used to demonstrate knowledge and understanding

AO2 is worth 60% of the marks      



 

Critical line of argument and justifying a point of view This cannot be just a list of strengths and weaknesses It MUST be related directly to the question e.g. if the question is asking about how useful Situation Ethics in making decisions for euthanasia – there is no point telling me that euthanasia is never acceptable because it’s murder. Link it to SE or counter it. You should be able to evaluate which of the different points you have written are stronger – that’s true evaluation Remember to use evidence to back your arguments. Whether these are scenarios (ethical theories) or real case studies (for applied ethics). You can also use some of the applied ethics case studies in your ethical theory essays. Don’t make generic and rash comments like “and of course we know that rape is always wrong” – the whole point of ethical studies is that we don’t know if anything is intrinsically right or wrong. If we did, ethical studies wouldn’t be a subject. We all disagree and that’s the beauty of it. If you are going to say rape is always wrong you need to back it up properly. Yes, pretty much everyone agrees that it is wrong, but just because “most people agree”, that doesn’t make a rational and logical argument. Always give a balanced argument – you can’t evaluate if you don’t at least mention both sides of the argument. Of course your thesis, main arguments and conclusion will learn towards one side. But how can you prove your thesis to be correct if you haven’t even considered the other argument. It’s like Kyle telling me that Eshan punched him and me believing what Kyle says to me, without even listening to Eshan side of the story. Yes it’s unlikely that Kyle would lie…but I haven’t even considered Eshan’s side so how can I truly come to a justified conclusion about what happened, why or who was in the wrong? [Sorry Eshan :P] When including your own opinion, it is far easier to use the opinion of an expert/scholar, rather than making a generic simplistic opinion of your own. Or at the very least make sure you solidly evidence your opinion with reasoned arguments and scholarly views to back you up. AO2 skills are built on AO1: you can evaluate only when you have sound knowledge and understanding.

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 10

For full AO2 marks you must [mark scheme]: • • • • • •

excellent, clear and successful argument confident and insightful critical analysis and detailed evaluation of the issue views skillfully and clearly stated, coherently developed and justified answers the question set precisely throughout thorough, accurate and precise use of technical terms and vocabulary in context extensive range of scholarly views, academic approaches and sources of wisdom and authority used to support analysis and evaluation

Essay Structure Thesis 1. Say whether you agree or disagree with the statement/question 2. Say why – give the most important, underlying reason why you agree/disagree  

*An academic paper without a thesis would be like a mammal without a spine* Avoid saying “My thesis is…”

Context (only for ethical theories, not applied ethics)  

This is just AO1 Explain how the ethical theory came about. When did it start? How did it start? Why did someone decide to come up with this theory?

Main Body PEAEL Paragraphs Point – Make a clear point for or against the statement/question. Include any relevant AO1 info here Evidence – Give an appropriate scenario. Try to be specific – murder in self-defence (rather than just murder) Analyse – How does this example support your original point? What are the implications? Break down your point and evidence into further detail and examine it. A chance to include more AO1 here too. Evaluate – Here you can either say that the point you have just made is invalid because… or give another reason to support the point, showing how strong of an argument it is

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 11

Link – Finally, link what you have written back to your thesis and the question.

 

Don’t just explain all the things you know about the topic – make sure you are answering the question specifically. The AO1 and AO2 information on page 2 contains some key tips on what to and not to do in the main body of your essay.

Conclusion 

   

Your conclusion needs to closely mirror your introduction by reiterating the position you have argued in your thesis and showing, in general terms, how the arguments you have made and the evidence you have used in the body of your essay support it. Don’t worry if it seems slightly repetitive. Just think of it as part of the ‘structural glue’ that links your ideas and holds your essay together. But bare in the mind, that it cannot be identical, it needs to show that your thesis has indeed been proven, due to various different arguments. Your conclusion is also the time to add any extra points to perfect or ad to your final conclusion If you realise that through the main body of essay that you actually ended up going against your thesis, this is the time to explain why You may want to recap the main point, but do not merely summarize the whole essay.

*FINALLY: Bear in mind that examiners are reading up to 40/50 scripts of the same answers in one sitting, which can be quite boring for them... So think about how you can make your answer original and stand out from the crowd.

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 12

Component 1: Philosophy of religion – philosophical language and thought

Revision

Notes

Privately studied

Learning Outcomes

Studied in class

H173/1 Philosophy of Religion: Checklist 1

The philosophical views of Plato in religion to understand of reality. Plato’s Analogy (Allegory) of the Cave: The role of the prisoners, The role of the shadows, The symbolism of the cave, The symbolism of the outside world, The symbolism of the Sun, The purpose of the journey out of the cave, The effect of the return to the prisoners Plato: the Concept of the Forms: The Form of the Good, Analogy of the divided line, The relation between concepts and phenomena, The concepts of “Ideals’, The relation between the Form of the Good and other Forms Strengths of Plato’s Forms a. Heraclitus’ river Weaknesses of Plato’s Forms: The problem of infinite regression, Plato’s own self-critique in Parmenides, Aristotle’s criticism in Metaphysics, Bertrand Russell’s criticism in The History of Western Philosophy, The validity of the above points on the Forms The Philosophical views of Aristotle in relation to the understanding of reality. Aristotle: ideas about cause and purpose in relation to God a) Material, efficient, formal and final cause in Aristotle b) Prime Mover in Aristotle Strengths of Aristotle’s Causes and Prime Mover Weaknesses of Aristotle’s Causes and Prime Mover Comparison and evaluation of Plato’s Form of the Good and Aristotle’s Prime Mover Comparison and evaluation of Plato’ reliance on reason (rationalism) and Aristotle’s use of the senses (empiricism) in their attempt to make sense of reality The Philosophical language of the soul, mind and body in the thinking of Plato and Aristotle. Plato: Dualism, Two Worlds, Soul (psyche) as a Form, Analogies: The Charioteer and the Two Horses, and The Hierarchy of the City Aristotle: 3 Types of Soul – Vegetative, Animal and Human, The soul as “that which animates”, Humans possessing nous Metaphysics of consciousness, including substance dualism (Descartes material and spiritual substances) Metaphysics of consciousness, including: Materialism Materialists critiques of dualism and dualist responses to materialism Ability to analyse whether the concept of soul is best understood metaphorically or as a reality. Is the mind-body distinction a category error?

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 13

Component 1: Philosophy of religion – Existence of God

Revision

Notes

Privately studied

Learning Outcomes

Studied in class

H173/1 Philosophy of Religion: Checklist 2

The nature of God in classical theism, including the attributes of God. Omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent, transcendent, immanent, simple, eternal and immutable. Arguments based on observation: Teleological argument put forward by William Paley Arguments based on observation: Teleological argument put forward by Aquinas (5th Way) Arguments based on observation: The argument from motion Arguments based on observation: The argument from causation Arguments based on observation: The argument from contingency Challenges to the argument of observation put forward by Hume Challenges to the argument of observation put forward by the challenges of Evolution Quotes from Paley, Aquinas, Hume, J.S. Mill, Darwin Can the teleological argument be defended against the challenge of ‘change’ Does the cosmological argument jump to the conclusion of a transcendent creator without sufficient explanation? Is the Prime Mover the Christian God? Immanuel Kant’s rejection of a Necessary Being The weaknesses of Hume’s challenge Leibniz’ Cosmological Argument: Principle of sufficient reason Bertrand Russell’s challenge to the Cosmological argument: Brute fact Argument based on reason: The ontological argument with reference to Anselm The difference between contingent and necessary existence Reductio ad absurdum Argument based on reason: Gaunilo’s criticism of the ontological argument in On behalf of the fool Argument based on reason: Kant’s criticism of the ontological argument Should existence be treated as a predicate? Does the Ontological argument justify belief? Analysis of arguments for belief: Is a posteriori or a priori a more persuasive style of argument? Are there logical fallacies in the teleological, cosmological and ontological argument that cannot be overcome? Rene Descartes Ontological argument Norman Malcolm and necessary existence Charles Hartshorne: Existence in intellectu and in re A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 14

Component 1: Philosophy of religion – God and the world

Revision

Notes

Privately studied

Learning Outcomes

Studied in class

H173/1 Philosophy of Religion: Checklist 3

Religious experience: The nature and influence of religious experience including: Mystical experiences Conversion experiences The main conclusions of William James JL Mackie psychological explanation of religious experience Different ways in which individual religious experiences can be understood Vision: St Teresa of Avila, Moses and the Ten Commandments, Mohammad and the Cave. Voices: Samuel and Augustine Corporate religious experience: Toronto Blessing Are personal testimonies or witnesses enough to support the validity of religious experiences? Are corporate religious experiences more reliable or valid than individual experiences? Do religious experiences provide a basis for belief in God or a great power? The problem of evil: Different presentations of the problem of evil and suffering Epicurus paradox and inconsistent triad. Hume’s development Theodicies that propose some justification or reason for divine action or inaction in the face of evil: Augustine’s use of original perfection and the fall. Soul-deciding theodicy and the concept of privation Hicks reworking of the Irenaean theodicy which gives some purpose to natural evil. The ‘Best possible world’ hypothesis and the parallels with the theory of evolution Is Augustine’s view of the origins of moral and natural evil enough to spare God from blame for evil in the world? Can we justify the existence and extent of evil in the world by arguing that it create a ‘vale of soul-making’? Which of the logical or evidential aspects of the problem of evil pose the greater challenge to belief? Can we successfully defend monotheism in the face of evil? Other responses to the Problem of evil: Plantinga’s and Swinburne’s Free Will Defence arguments Anthony flew and the problem with theodicy

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 15

Essays Essay: “Explain criticisms that have been made of Plato’s Theory of Forms and evaluate how valid are these criticisms” [40] AO1

You correctly identify and explain all the weaknesses of Plato’s Theory of Forms. You explain clearly relevant key ideas of Plato’s Forms, supported by examples. You select accurate and relevant material from Plato’s Parmenides, Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Bertrand Russell, making clear their criticisms of Plato’s Forms. You use accurately a range of technical language and terminology.

You correctly identify and explain weaknesses of Plato’s Theory of Forms. You describe relevant key ideas of Plato’s Forms, supported by examples. You select some accurate and relevant material from Plato’s Parmenides, Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Bertrand Russell, describing their criticisms of Plato’s Forms. You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology.

You identify some of the weaknesses of Plato’s Theory of Forms. You describe some relevant ideas of Plato’s Forms. You select some limited but accurate material from Plato’s Parmenides, Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Bertrand Russell, describing some of their criticisms of Plato’s Forms. Technical language and terminology is used with limited accuracy.

AO2

You assess the strengths and weaknesses of the criticisms of Plato’s Forms. You critically evaluate the criticisms in Parmenides, Aristotle and Bertrand Russell. You give a clear personal point of view and justify it through the use of evidence and reasoned argument. You construct a coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples and sources of evidence. You use accurate and fluent expression.

You assess the strengths and weaknesses of the criticisms of Plato’s Forms. You evaluate the some of the criticisms in Parmenides, Aristotle and Bertrand Russell, but some of your answer is just descriptive. Your argument demonstrates some organisation and coherence, using evidence and reasoned argument. You use language that has some precision.

You mainly describe the strengths and weaknesses of Plato’s Forms. You show limited evaluation of the criticisms in Parmenides, Aristotle and Bertrand Russell, with limited identification of the strengths and weaknesses of each argument. Your argument demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. You use language that lacks precision.

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 16

Essay: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Evaluate

the claim that there can be no disembodied existence after death.â&#x20AC;? (40 marks)

Comprehensive and totally accurate knowledge of the different dualist approaches to personal identity, including Plato, with accurate use of technical language throughout the essay. Clear identification of the challenge to disembodied existence from materialism, in particular Richard Dawkins. Full understanding shown by an analysis of Plato, Richard Dawkins, the evidence of H.H. Price, NDEs, and Bertrand Russell; clearly linking their ideas to the question. A clear recognition of the problems as the possibility of life after death and personal identity. Clear evaluation of the approaches of Plato and Richard Dawkins, giving a clear personal opinion of their effectiveness at responding to the philosophical problems. Opposing views are considered and counter-acted. Evidence of your own thinking. A clear and developed argument.

Mainly accurate knowledge of the different dualist approaches to personal identity, including Plato, with accurate use of technical language in most of the essay. Identification of the challenge to disembodied existence from materialism, in particular Richard Dawkins. Understanding shown by some analysis of Plato, RichardDawkins, the evidence of H.H. Price, NDEs, and Bertrand Russell; with an attempt made to link their ideas to the question. Some recognition of the problems as the possibility of life after death and personal identity. Some evaluation of the approaches of Plato and Richard Dawkins, giving a clear personal opinion of their effectiveness at responding to the philosophical problems. Evidence of your own thinking.

Limited and partially accurate knowledge of the different views of personal identity, with some accurate use of technical language in some of the essay. Limited understanding shown by limited analysis of Plato and Richard Dawkins. Limited recognition of the philosophical problems. Limited evaluation of the approaches of Plato and Richard Dawkins, possibly giving a personal opinion of their effectiveness at responding to the philosophical problems.

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 17

Essay for the Cosmological Argument

Essay: “Explain Aquinas’ cosmological argument and evaluate how successful were Russell’s criticisms of it.” [40] AO1

You clearly explain Aquinas’ cosmological argument demonstrating to what extent Aquinas’ versions are successful in proving there is some kind of divine mind behind the creation of the universe. You include the ideas of: infinite regress, linking it clearly to the argument; necessity and contingency; the idea of sufficient reason for anything to exist; causation; and motion. Your answer is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a range of technical language and terminology.

You explain Aquinas’ cosmological argument identifying to what extent Aquinas’ versions are successful in proving there is some kind of divine mind behind the creation of the universe. You include some of the ideas of: infinite regress, linking it clearly to the argument; necessity and contingency; the idea of sufficient reason for anything to exist; causation; or motion. Your answer is supported by some evidence and examples. You use mostly accurate a technical language and terminology.

You mainly describe Aquinas’ cosmological argument, using the ideas of causation, motion or necessary being. You answer has occasional support from examples and evidence. You make limited use of correct language and terminology.

A02

You critically evaluate Aquinas’ cosmological argument, making full use of the radio debate between Russell and Copleston. You identify strengths and weaknesses of Russell’s argument and You justify a point of view clearly answering to what extent Russell was successful. You will also include evidence from Kant, Hume and Leibniz. You construct a coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples or sources of evidence. You use accurate and fluent expression.

You evaluate Aquinas’ cosmological argument, mentioning the radio debate between Russell and Copleston. You identify strengths and weaknesses of Russell’s argument, justifying your evaluation. You include evidence from Kant, Hume or Leibniz. However, elements of your response are descriptive. Your argument is organised and coherent. You use language that has some precision.

You mainly describe Russell’s criticisms of Aquinas’ cosmological argument, using little or no justification or evaluation. Your argument has minimal organisation and shows limited coherence. You use language that lacks precision.

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 18

Essay for the Teleological Argument Essay: “Explain Mill’s challenge to the Teleological argument and evaluate the claim that the universe has too many flaws for it to be designed.” (40 marks) AO1

You clearly explain J.S. Mill’s argument that the overwhelming evidence of cruelty in nature far outweighs the evidence for their being a benevolent intelligence behind the universe. You clearly compare and contrast this with the claims made by William Paley and Thomas Aquinas in favour of design. You demonstrate a clear understanding of the question of whether or not there has to be a designer if the world is apparently designed. Your answer is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a range of technical language and terminology.

You clearly J.S. Mill’s argument that the overwhelming evidence of cruelty in nature far outweighs the evidence for their being a benevolent intelligence behind the universe. You compare this with the claims made by William Paley and Thomas Aquinas in favour of design. You demonstrate some understanding of the question of whether or not there has to be a designer if the world is apparently designed. Your answer is supported by some evidence and examples. You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology.

You mainly describe J.S. Mill’s argument that the overwhelming evidence of cruelty in nature far outweighs the evidence for their being a benevolent intelligence behind the universe. You might describe the claims made by William Paley and Thomas Aquinas. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of technical language and terminology.

AO2

You critically evaluate the arguments advanced by J.S. Mill, Richard Dawkins and David Hume. You explain the strengths and weaknesses of each argument. Counter-argument is presented by using relevant parts of theodicies of Augustine and Irenaeus, and using the relevant parts of the different teleological arguments. You give a clear opinion for or against, fully justified and supported by evidence and examples. You construct a coherent and well-organised argument. You use accurate and fluent expression.

You evaluate the arguments advanced by J.S. Mill, Richard Dawkins and David Hume. You describe the strengths and weaknesses of each argument. Counter-argument may be presented by using some parts of theodicies of Augustine and Irenaeus, and using the some parts of the different teleological arguments. Elements of your response are descriptive. You give an opinion for or against, justified and supported by evidence or examples. Your argument is coherent and organised. You use language that has some precision.

You mainly describe the arguments advanced by J.S. Mill, Richard Dawkins or David Hume. You might describe some of the strengths or some of the weaknesses of their arguments. You might describe some of the counter-arguments from Augustine, Irenaeus or the teleological arguments. Your argument has minimal organisation and shows limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or justification. You use language that lacks precision.

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 19

Essay for the Moral Argument Essay: “Explain and evaluate Freud’s view that moral awareness comes from sources other than God.” (40 marks) AO1

You clearly explain how Freud, as a psychologist, argues that humanity’s moral values cannot be seen as objective. You explain his rejection of Kant’s moral argument, giving a brief outline of Kant’s ideas. Your explanation makes clear the importance of the Oedipus complex, Freud’s model of the mind (id, superego and ego), the role of early childhood experiences, traumas and the idea of religion as an obsessional neurosis. You also explain some of the problems of Freud’s views: his rejection by modern psychotherapists; the problems with the evidential basis of his ideas. Your answer is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a range of technical language and terminology.

You explain how Freud, as a psychologist, argues that humanity’s moral values cannot be seen as objective. You describe his rejection of Kant’s moral argument, giving a brief outline of Kant’s ideas. Your explanation states the importance of the Oedipus complex, Freud’s model of the mind (id, superego and ego), the role of early childhood experiences, traumas and the idea of religion as an obsessional neurosis. You also describe some of the problems of Freud’s views: his rejection by modern psychotherapists; the problems with the evidential basis of his ideas. Your answer is supported by some evidence and examples. You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology.

You describe Freud’s view of morality and moral objectivity. You mainly describe Freud’s ideas of Oedipus complex, id, superego, ego, early childhood experiences, trauma, and religion as obsessional neurosis. You might mention his rejection of Kant’s moral argument. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of technical language and terminology.

AO2

You give a clear opinion; a fully justified, coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples and evidence. You evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Kant and Freud. You assess the evidence Freud used to support his ideas, deciding if he succeeds in fully explaining human moral awareness. You assess the evidence from John Hick, John Cardinal Newman and Thomas Aquinas supporting moral awareness coming from God. You construct a coherent and wellorganised argument. You use accurate and fluent expression.

You give an opinion; a justified, coherent and organised argument, supported by some examples and some evidence. You explain the strengths and weaknesses of Kant and Freud. You describe the evidence Freud used to support his ideas, giving an opinion on his explanation of human moral awareness. You describe the evidence from John Hick, John Cardinal Newman and Thomas Aquinas supporting moral awareness coming from God. Elements of your response are descriptive. Your argument is coherent and organised. You use language that has some precision.

You give an almost entirely descriptive account of the views and theories of Immanuel Kant, Sigmund Freud, John Cardinal Newman, John Hick or Thomas Aquinas. Your argument has minimal organisation and shows limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or justification. You use language that lacks precision.

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 20

Essay for the Ontological Argument: Essay: “Explain Anselm’s ontological argument and assess the claim that it is pointless to deny the logical necessity of the existence of God.” [40] AO1

You accurately explain how Anselm’s ontological argument attempts to demonstrate God’s necessary existence, clearly outlining Anselm’s a priori proof for the existence of God and the acceptance of the truth of the phrase “God exists”. You clearly outline the argument using existence in intelletcu, existence in re, and reductio ad absurdum to conclude that God must exist in reality. You clearly explain why Anselm developed an argument predicated on proving God’s existence prior to, and not dependent upon, experience. You will also mention the idea of necessary existence and Anselm’s attempt to make faith rational. You accurately use a range of technical language and terminology.

You accurately explain some of the features of Anselm’s ontological argument from the following: a priori proof; rejection of the Fool; existence in intellectu; existence in re; reductio ad absurdum; argument predicated on proving existence prior to experience; necessary existence; making faith rational; “being than which none greater can be conceived.” You make some use of correct language and terminology.

Limited and partially accurate knowledge of Anselm’s ontological argument, in answer which is mainly descriptive. You describe, partially, the idea of “being than which none greater can be conceived.” You make limited use of correct language and terminology.

AO2

You clearly and critically evaluate to what extent Anselm’s ontological argument was successful in supporting his assertion that belief in God was a logical necessity. You construct a coherent and wellorganised argument supported by examples and sources of evidence. Your argument focuses on necessary existence, reductio ad absurdum, in intellectu and in re, and the extent to which the argument is valid in logical terms. You analyse the challenges from Gaunilo, Immanuel Kant and Pierre Gassendi. You demonstrate a clear understanding of predicate and premise based philosophical arguments. You critically analyse and evaluate the challenges from Gaunilo, Immanuel Kant and Pierre Gassendi. You use accurate and fluent expression.

You evaluate Anselm’s ontological argument was in supporting his assertion that belief in God was a logical necessity, clearly identifying the strengths and weaknesses. Your argument uses the idea of necessary existence. You mainly describe the challenges from Gaunilo, Immanuel Kant and Pierre Gassendi. Your analysis of Anselm makes use of evidence and examples to analyse and evaluate. Your argument demonstrates some organisation and coherence, using evidence and reasoned argument. You use language that has some precision.

You describe the ideas of necessity and contingency. You provide limited evaluation of the argument from necessity, having attempted to give an opinion. Your opinion lacks evidence or justification. Your argument demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. You use language that lacks precision.

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 21

Essay: “Critically assess, with reference to William James, the arguments from religious experience.” [40 marks]

Comprehensive and totally accurate knowledge of the William James’ argument from religious, with accurate use of technical language throughout the essay. Full understanding shown by an analysis of pragmatism, Richard Swinburne, and C.D. Broad; clearly linking their ideas to the question. A clear explanation of how religious experience may provide evidence for God’s existence. Use of specific examples of religious experience will show good understanding, and examples are clearly linked to the question. Clear evaluation of the approaches of William James and Richard Swinburne, giving a clear personal opinion of their effectiveness at justifying religious experience as evidence for God’s existence. Opposing views from J.J. Mackie, C.G. Jung, Immanuel Kant and David Hume are considered and, where appropriate counter-acted. Evidence of your own thinking, leading to a clear and fully justified conclusion. A clear and developed argument, showing a clear personal opinion throughout. Mainly accurate knowledge of the William James’ argument from religious, with accurate use of technical language in most of the essay. Some understanding shown by some analysis of pragmatism, and Richard Swinburne; linking their ideas to the question. An explanation of how religious experience may provide evidence for God’s existence. Use of specific example(s) of religious experience will show understanding, and an attempt is made to link examples to the question. Some evaluation of the approaches of William James and Richard Swinburne, giving a personal opinion of their effectiveness at justifying religious experience as evidence for God’s existence. Opposing views from J.J. Mackie, C.G. Jung, Immanuel Kant and David Hume are described. Evidence of your own thinking, leading to a justified conclusion. A well written argument, showing a clear personal opinion, not just in the conclusion. Limited and partially accurate knowledge of the William James’ argument from religious, with some accurate use of technical language in some of the essay. Limited understanding shown by a limited analysis of pragmatism, and Richard Swinburne. A description of what religious experience is. Use of specific example of religious experience, but not successfully linked to the question. Limited evaluation of the approaches of William James and Richard Swinburne, possibly giving a personal opinion of their effectiveness at justifying religious experience as evidence for God’s existence.

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 22

Essay for the Problem of Evil Essay: “Explain the theodicy of Irenaeus and assess the claim that the theodicy of Irenaeus cannot justify the existence of God.” [40 marks] AO1

You clearly explain Irenaeus’ theodicy, with a clear and concise explanation of the problem of evil using Epicurus and David Hume. Your make clear the importance of omnipotence and benevolence to understanding the problem of evil. You explain the apparent logical inconsistency between the classical theological definitions of God and the existence of Evil. You explain Irenaeus’ theodicy using evidence and examples including: John Keates; John Hick; the role of free will; epistemic distance; and human potentiality. You make clear where John Hick has emended or improved on Irenaeus. Your answer is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a range of technical language and terminology.

You explain Irenaeus’ theodicy, with a concise description of the problem of evil using Epicurus and David Hume. Your description of the problem of evil includes the ideas of omnipotence and benevolence. You describe the apparent logical inconsistency between the classical theological definitions of God and the existence of Evil. You explain Irenaeus’ theodicy using some evidence or examples including: John Keates; John Hick; the role of free will; epistemic distance; and human potentiality. You state that John Hick has emended or improved on Irenaeus. Your answer is supported by some evidence and examples. You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology.

You mainly describe Ireaneus’ theodicy, with a brief description of the problem of evil. Your description of the problem of evil includes the ideas of omnipotence and benevolence. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of technical language and terminology.

A02

You give a clear opinion on the extent to which Irenaeus’ theodicy justifies the existence of evil. You give a fully justified, coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples and evidence. You critically evaluate Irenaeus’ theodicy, using the ideas of: “acquiescence in the face of evil”; evil being given dignity and purpose; problems with John Hick’s apparent universalism; and the arguments of D.Z. Phillips. You assess the “best possible world” hypothesis and other points in support of Ireaneus. You use accurate and fluent expression.

You give an opinion on the extent to which Irenaeus’ theodicy justifies the existence of evil. You give a justified, coherent and organised argument, supported by some examples and some evidence. You evaluate Irenaeus’ theodicy, using the ideas of: “acquiescence in the face of evil”; evil being given dignity and purpose; problems with John Hick’s apparent universalism; and the arguments of D.Z. Phillips. You assess the “best possible world” hypothesis and other points in support of Ireaneus. Elements of your response are descriptive. Your argument is coherent and organised. You use language that has some precision.

You mainly describe the challenges and problems with Irenaeus’ theodicy, or the points supporting Irenaeus’ theodicy. Your argument has minimal organisation and shows limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or justification. You use language that lacks precision.

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 23

Essay for Science and Religion Essay: “Explain the concept of Irreducible Complexity and evaluate the claim that there is no evidence of Intelligent Design in the universe.” [40 marks] AO1

You clearly explain Irreducible Complexity, linking it clearly to the discussion about Intelligent Design. You explain how Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design are direct challenges to the established and generally accepted theory of evolution and Darwinism. You explain the theories of Michael Behe on molecular biology and the analogy of the mousetrap. You explain the problems with the validity of using non-organic examples to explain biochemical processes. Your answer is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a range of technical language and terminology.

You explain Irreducible Complexity and describe the theory of Intelligent Design. You explain how Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design are direct challenges to the established and generally accepted theory of evolution and Darwinism. You describe the theories of Michael Behe on molecular biology and the analogy of the mousetrap. You identify the problems with the validity of using non-organic examples to explain biochemical processes. Your answer is supported by some evidence and examples. You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology.

You mainly describe Irreducible Complexity, with a brief description of the problem of evil. You describe the theories of Michael Behe on molecular biology and the analogy of the mousetrap. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of technical language and terminology.

AO2

You give a clear opinion on the evidence for or against Intelligent Design. You give a fully justified, coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples and evidence. You critically evaluate evidence from Michael Behe, Paul Davies, J.S. Mill, Richard Dawkins, David Hume, Thomas Aquinas and William Paley. You assess the evidence from Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and the evidence from The Discovery Institute. You use accurate and fluent expression.

You give an opinion on the evidence for or against Intelligent Design. You give a justified, coherent and organised argument supported by examples or evidence. You evaluate evidence from Michael Behe, Paul Davies, J.S. Mill, Richard Dawkins, David Hume, Thomas Aquinas and William Paley. You describe the evidence from Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and the evidence from The Discovery Institute. Elements of your response are descriptive. You use language that has some precision.

You mainly describe the challenges and problems with Michael’s Behe’s biological machines, and describe the challenge from Richard Dawkins. Your argument has minimal organisation and shows limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or justification. You use language that lacks precision.

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 24

Essay for nature of God Essay: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Critically assess the philosophical problems raised by the belief that God is omniscient.â&#x20AC;? [40] A

Comprehensive and totally accurate knowledge of the different views of omniscience, with accurate use of technical language throughout the essay. Full understanding shown by an analysis of Boethius and Richard Swinburne, clearly linking their ideas to the question. A clear recognition of the philosophical problems. Clear evaluation of the approaches of Boethius and Richard Swinburne, giving a clear personal opinion of their effectiveness at responding to the philosophical problems. Opposing views are considered and counter-acted. Evidence of your own thinking. A clear and developed argument.

Mainly accurate knowledge of the different views of omniscience, with accurate use of technical language in most of the essay. Some understanding shown by some analysis of Boethius and Richard Swinburne, with an attempt made to link their ideas to the question. Some recognition of the philosophical problems. Some evaluation of the approaches of Boethius and Richard Swinburne, giving a clear personal opinion of their effectiveness at responding to the philosophical problems. Evidence of your own thinking.

Limited and partially accurate knowledge of the different views of omniscience, with some accurate use of technical language in some of the essay. Limited understanding shown by limited analysis of Boethius and Richard Swinburne. Limited recognition of the philosophical problems. Limited evaluation of the approaches of Boethius and Richard Swinburne, possibly giving a personal opinion of their effectiveness at responding to the philosophical problems.

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 25

Essay: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Critically assess the view that religious language is meaningless.â&#x20AC;? [40 marks]

Comprehensive and totally accurate knowledge of the different views of the meaningfulness of religious language, with accurate use of technical language throughout the essay. Full understanding shown by detailed analysis of A.J. Ayer, Thomas Aquinas, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Paul Tillich; clearly linking their ideas to the question. Use of specific examples to make clear the points being made by each philosopher. Clear recognition of the problem of meaningfulness of language (as opposed to truthfulness of statements). Clear evaluation of the approaches of A.J. Ayer, Thomas Aquinas, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Paul Tillich, giving a clear personal opinion of their effectiveness at defining religious language as meaningful or meaningless. Use of R.M. Hare and Basil Mitchell to evaluate the Falsification Principle, DunsScotus for Analogy and D.Z.Phillips for LanguageGame. A clear personal opinion on meaningfulness, supported by evidence, with opposing views considered and counter-acted. Mainly accurate knowledge of the different views of the meaningfulness of religious language, with accurate use of technical language in most of the essay. Understanding shown by analysis of A.J. Ayer, Thomas Aquinas, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Paul Tillich; linking their ideas to the question. Some recognition of the problem of meaningfulness of language (as opposed to truthfulness of statements). Some evaluation of the approaches of A.J. Ayer, Thomas Aquinas, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Paul Tillich, giving a personal opinion of their effectiveness at defining religious language as meaningful or meaningless. Use of R.M. Hare and Basil Mitchell to evaluate the Falsification Principle, Duns Scotus for Analogy and D.Z.Phillips for Language Game. A personal opinion on meaningfulness, supported by evidence. Evidence of your own thinking. Limited and partially accurate knowledge of the different views of the meaningfulness of religious language, with accurate use of technical language in some of the essay. Limited understanding shown by limited analysis of A.J. Ayer, Thomas Aquinas, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Paul Tillich. Some evaluation of the approaches of A.J. Ayer, Thomas Aquinas, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Paul Tillich, possibly giving a personal opinion of their effectiveness at defining religious language as meaningful or meaningless.

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 26

Component 2: Religion and ethics – Normative ethical theory – religious approaches

Revision

Notes

Privately studied

Learning Outcomes

Studied in class

H173/2 Religion and ethics: Checklist 4

Aristotle’s Theory of Causes, Efficient Cause, Final Cause, Eudaimonia, Purpose of life Origins of Aquinas’ Natural Law: Foundation in Aristotle, Efficient cause and God, Biblical (scriptural) background (esp. Genesis 1, 2 and 3), Purpose and perfection TELOS

Aquinas natural law, including the four tiers of law: Eternal Law, Divine Law, Natural Law, Humans Law

Precepts and reason: Five primary precepts, Secondary precepts, Apparent good, Real good Doctrine of Double Effect

Does natural law provide a helpful method of moral decision-making? Can we make judgements about something being good, bad, right or wrong, based on its success or failure in achieving its telos? Is the universe as a whole designed with a telos, or does human nature have an orientation towards the good? Does the doctrine of double effect justify any action such as killing someone as an act of self-defence? Strengths of Natural Law: Aspects common to all cultures and societies, Focuses on human character, Reason, emotions, passions and practical wisdom, The pursuit of happiness Weaknesses of Natural Law: G.E. Moore, Kai Neilson, Karl Barth, Peter Vardy Situation ethics Agape The six propositions of situation ethics The four working principles of situation ethics. The importance of the conscience

Does situation ethics provide a helpful method of moral decision-making? Can ethical judgement about something be good, bad, right or wrong based on the extent to which, in any situation, agape is best served? Had Joseph Fletcher got a religious understanding of agape or is it nothing more than wanting the best for the person involved in a given situation? Does the rejection of absolute rules by situation ethics make moral decision making entirely individualistic and subjective?

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 27

Component 2: Religion and ethics – Normative ethical theory

Revision

Notes

Privately studied

Learning Outcomes

Studied in class

H173/2 Religion and ethics: Checklist 5

Kantian ethics: the concept of duty, and good will Kantian ethics: the hypothetical imperative

Kantian ethics: the categorical imperative and its three formulations Kantian ethics: the three postulates Does Kantian ethics provide a helpful method for moral decision-making?

Can ethical judgement about something be good, bad, right or wrong based on the extent to which duty is best served? Is Kantian ethics too abstract to be applicable to practical moral decision-making? Does Kant rely too much on reason, rejecting the importance of other factors, such as sympathy, empathy and love in moral-decision making? W.D. Ross and prima facie duties What are the problems with conflicting duties Utilitarianism: The principle of utility Utilitarianism: The hedonic calculus Act utilitarianism Rule utilitarianism Qualitative versus quantitative John Stuart Mill: Deontological, consequentialist and relativistic: Higher and Lower pleasures Peter Singer – Preference Utilitarianism: Impartial spectator Does utilitarianism provide a helpful method for moral decision making? Can ethical judgements about something be good, bad right or wrong based on the extent to which, in any given situation, utility is best served? Is it possible to measure good or please and then reach a moral decision?

Other forms of utilitarianism: R.M. Hare and preference utilitarianism The problem of separation ‘intention’ from ‘ends’ W.D. Ross and prima facie duties within Utilitarianism Kant based examples for the categorical imperative including the honest shop keeper

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 28

Component 2: Applied Ethics – Euthanasia and Business Ethics

Revision

Notes

Privately studied

Learning Outcomes

Studied in class

H173/2 Religion and ethics: Checklist 6

Euthanasia: The idea of sanctity of life Euthanasia: The idea of quality of life

Voluntary euthanasia Non-voluntary euthanasia Case studies of voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia

Application of natural law and situation ethics to euthanasia Does the religious concept of sanctity of life have any meaning in 21 st Century medical ethics? Should a person have complete autonomy over their own life and decisions made about it? Is there a moral difference between medical intervention to end a patient’s life and medical non-intervention to end a patient’s life? James Rachels: Passive v active Euthanasia Personhood and it’s application to Euthanasia The concept of the slippery slope Business ethics: Key ideas, including corporate social responsibility and; Whistle-blowing Good ethics is good business Globalisation Application of Kantian ethics and utilitarianism to business ethics Critically assess whether corporate social responsibility is nothing more than ‘hypocritical window-dressing’ covering the greed of a business intent on making profits. Can human beings flourish in the context of capitalism and consumerism?

Does globalisation encourage or discourage the pursuit of good ethics as the foundation of good business? Leviticus 19:13 and the relationship between employers and employees Milton Freedman on the responsibility to shareholders

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 29

Essays Essay: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Explain the concept of relativist morality and assess the view that relativist ethics are unfair.â&#x20AC;? [40] AO1

You explain clearly the concept of relativist morality, selecting accurate and relevant examples from different relativist ethical theories. You explain the importance of moral truth varying according to culture, time, place and religion. You explain the need for an approach to ethics that takes account of each human situation and the problems with fixed moral rules. You explain how even relativist theories do not completely reject moral rules, and explain how these rules are flexible in contrast to absolutist moral rules. Your answer is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a range of technical language and terminology.

You explain the concept of relativist morality, selecting relevant examples from some relativist ethical theories. You describe the importance of moral truth varying according to culture, time, place and religion. You describe the need for an approach to ethics that takes account of each human situation and the problems with fixed moral rules. You explain how the rules of relativist ethical theories are flexible in contrast to absolutist moral rules. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology.

You define relativist morality, describing some relevant examples. You describe how moral truth varies according to culture, time, place and religion. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of technical language and terminology.

AO2

You give a clear opinion on the fairness of relativist ethics. You give a fully justified, coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples and evidence. You assess whether or not relativist ethical theories could mean that anything is morally acceptable and whether all moral responses are equal. You critically evaluate if ethical practices can be condemned or considered wrong â&#x20AC;&#x201C; good becomes socially approved, may vary between and within cultures, and consider if this is an unfair approach. You will compare and contrast this absolutist ethics and absolutist ethical theories to show if relativist ethics is more or less unfair. You construct a coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples and sources of evidence. You use accurate and fluent expression.

You give an opinion on the fairness of relativist ethics. You give a justified, coherent and organised argument supported by examples or evidence. You assess whether or not relativist ethical theories could mean that anything is morally acceptable and whether all moral responses are equal. You evaluate if ethical practices can be considered wrong and consider if this is an unfair approach. Your argument demonstrates some organisation and coherence, using evidence and reasoned argument. You use language that has some precision.

You describe some of the problems with relativist ethics, giving some of the weaknesses of different relativist ethical theories. You might mention some of the strengths of absolutist ethics. Your argument demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or justification. You use language that lacks precision.

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 30

Essay: “Explain the strengths and weaknesses of Natural Law theory.” [40] AO1

You explain clearly the strengths of Natural Law theory, giving a concise outline of Natural Law theory from Thomas Aquinas and its origins in Aristotle. You explain how Natural Law is absolutist and depends on the idea that God created everything for a purpose. You give evidence for how Natural Law gives a clear cut approach to morality and the advantages of establishing common moral rules. You explain the importance of the basic principles, and state why these could be considered positively. You explain how Natural Law considers both intention and act, and why this is a strength. You explain the strength of focusing on human goodness and eudaimonia. Your answer is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a range of technical language and terminology.

You explain the strengths of Natural Law theory, giving a concise outline of Natural Law theory from Thomas Aquinas and its origins in Aristotle. You describe how Natural Law is absolutist and depends on the idea that God created everything for a purpose. You state how Natural Law gives a clear cut approach to morality and the advantages of establishing common moral rules. You describe the basic principles, and state why these could be considered positively. You describe how Natural Law considers both intention and act, and why this is a strength. You describe the strength of focusing on human goodness and eudaimonia. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology.

You mainly describe some of the advantages or strengths of Natural Law, giving an outline of Natural Law theory from Thomas Aquinas. You might include: God creating everything for a purpose, the advantages of common moral rules; intention and act; and eudaimonia. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of technical language and terminology.

AO2

You give a clear opinion on whether or not Natural Law has any serious weaknesses. You give a fully justified, coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples and evidence. You assess the claim that Natural Law gives a rational approach to morality and that its basic principles are common to all societies and cultures, so the purpose of morality is the fulfilment of our natures, evaluating if this a strength or not. You assess the claim that there is a common human nature and if it is possible to have a universal moral law. You critically evaluate the religious basis of Aquinas’ natural law and use evidence to show if this is a strength or weakness. You assess if Natural Law is undermined because it ignores the needs and feelings of the people involved and their particular situation. You use accurate and fluent expression.

You give an opinion on whether or not Natural Law has any serious weaknesses. You give a justified, coherent and organised argument supported by examples or evidence. Elements of your answer are descriptive. You assess the claim that Natural Law’s basic principles are common to all societies and cultures, evaluating if this is a strength or not. You evaluate the religious basis of Aquinas’ natural law and use evidence to show if this is a strength or weakness. You assess if Natural Law is undermined because it ignores the needs and feelings of the people involved and their particular situation. You use language that has some precision.

You mainly describe some of the weaknesses of Natural Law. You might mention some of the strengths of Natural Law. Your argument demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or justification. You use language that lacks precision.

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 31

Essay for Kantian Ethics

Essay: “Explain, with examples, Kant’s theory of the Categorical Imperative and evaluate if Kant’s theory has no serious weaknesses.” [40] AO1

You explain clearly Immanuel Kant’s three formulations of the Categorical Imperative. You explain the importance of the Categorical Imperative for deciding what our duty is. You explain how and why Kant developed the Categorical Imperative. You explain the importance of “good will” and compare this with acting in conformity with duty. You include Kant’s own examples and might include examples of your own. You include an explanation of a priori synthetic statements. Your answer is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a range of technical language and terminology.

You explain Immanuel Kant’s three formulations of the Categorical Imperative. You explain the importance of the Categorical Imperative for deciding what our duty is. You describe how Kant developed the Categorical Imperative. You explain the importance of “good will” and compare this with acting in conformity with duty. You include Kant’s own examples. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology.

You mainly describe Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative. You describe how the Categorical Imperative is used for deciding what our duty is. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of technical language and terminology.

AO2

You give a clear opinion on whether or not Kantian Ethics has any serious weaknesses. You give a fully justified, coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples and evidence. You critically evaluate the claims that Kantian Ethics is inflexible and that there is conflict of duties. You assess if the stated advantages (underlying logic, need for universal moral principles, and the objectivity of Kantian Ethics) outweigh the stated disadvantages. You assess if Kantian Ethics helps or hinders human rights. You use accurate and fluent expression.

You give an opinion on whether or not Kantian Ethics has any serious weaknesses. You give a justified, coherent and organised argument supported by examples and evidence. Elements of your response are descriptive. You evaluate the claims that Kantian Ethics is inflexible and that there is conflict of duties. You assess if the stated advantages (underlying logic, need for universal moral principles, and the objectivity of Kantian Ethics) outweigh the stated disadvantages. You assess if Kantian Ethics helps or hinders human rights. You use language that has some precision.

You mainly describe some of the weaknesses of Kantian Ethics. You might mention some of the strengths of Kantian Ethics. Your argument demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or justification. You use language that lacks precision.

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 32

Essay for Utilitarianism

Essay: “Explain the Preference Utilitarianism of Peter Singer and assess to what extent is Preference Utilitarianism is the best form of Utilitarianism.” [40] AO1

You give a clear explanation of Peter Singer’s Preference Utilitarianism. You explain the Principle of Utility. You explain how Singer refines Utilitarianism by focusing on the 7th criteria of the Hedonic Calculus. You compare and contrast Preference Utilitarianism with Bentham and J.S. Mill, explaining the different ways Act, Rule and Preference judge right and wrong. You explain the role of the impartial spectator and explain the place of preference for humans and animals in Singer’s theory. Your answer is fully supported by evidence and examples. You use accurately a range of technical language and terminology.

You give an explanation of Peter Singer’s Preference Utilitarianism. You explain the Principle of Utility. You compare and contrast Preference Utilitarianism with Bentham and J.S. Mill, explaining the different ways Act, Rule and Preference judge right and wrong. You describe the role of the impartial spectator and describe the place of preference for humans and animals in Singer’s theory. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. Elements of your response are descriptive. You use mostly accurately technical language and terminology.

You mainly describe Peter Singer’s Preference Utilitarianism. You describe the impartial spectator and describe the place of preference for humans and animals in Singer’s theory. Your answer has occasional support from examples or evidence. You make limited and often inaccurate use of technical language and terminology.

AO2

You give a clear opinion on whether or not Preference Utilitarianism is better or worse than Act or Rule Utilitarianism. You give a fully justified, coherent and well-organised argument supported by examples and evidence. You assess if Preference Utilitarianism overcomes the weaknesses of both Act and Rule Utilitarianism, including allowing unjust actions, unjust results or being too impersonal. You critically evaluate the claim that Preference Utilitarianism protects minorities. You critically evaluate the weaknesses of Preference Utilitarianism (including difficulty in making decisions or being sure if decisions are right) to decide if they are strong enough to undermine Preference Utilitarianism. You use accurate and fluent expression.

You give an opinion on whether or not Preference Utilitarianism is better or worse than Act or Rule Utilitarianism. You give a justified, coherent and organised argument supported by examples or evidence. Elements of your response are descriptive. You assess if Preference Utilitarianism overcomes the weaknesses of both Act and Rule Utilitarianism, including allowing unjust actions, unjust results or being too impersonal. You evaluate the claim that Preference Utilitarianism protects minorities. You evaluate the weaknesses of Preference Utilitarianism (including difficulty in making decisions or being sure if decisions are right) to decide if they are strong enough to undermine Preference Utilitarianism. You use language that has some precision.

You mainly describe some of the strengths and weaknesses of Preference Utilitarianism. You might mention some of the strengths or weaknesses of Act or Rule Utilitarianism. Your argument demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or justification. You use language that lacks precision.

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 33

Essay for Euthanasia

Essay: â&#x20AC;&#x153;To what extent is Utilitarianism a useful method for making moral decisions about euthanasia?â&#x20AC;? (40 marks)

You give a clear opinion for or against Utilitarianism being useful for moral decision making on euthanasia. You give a fully justified, coherent and well-organised argument supported by specific examples and clear evidence. You critically evaluate the different version of Utilitarianism as applied to euthanasia; deciding if any of: Act, Rule or Preference approaches, leads to satisfactory moral outcomes. You assess the importance of Quality of Life. You assess if individual needs and situations should be taken account of in moral choices related to euthanasia, and assess if there are moral absolutes linked to sanctity of life and personhood. You compare and contrast Utilitarianism with other ethical theories, which could be deontological or teleological. You use accurate and fluent expression.

You give an opinion for or against Utilitarianism being useful for moral decision making on euthanasia. You give a justified, coherent and organised argument supported by examples or evidence. Elements of your response are descriptive. You evaluate the different version of Utilitarianism as applied to euthanasia; deciding if any of: Act, Rule or Preference approaches, leads to satisfactory moral outcomes. You assess the importance of Quality of Life. You assess if there are moral absolutes linked to sanctity of life and personhood. You might compare and contrast Utilitarianism with other ethical theories, which could be deontological or teleological. You use language that has some precision.

You mainly describe some of the strengths and weaknesses of Utilitarianism as applied to euthanasia. You might mention some of the strengths or weaknesses of other ethical theories as applied to euthanasia. Your argument demonstrates minimal organisation or limited coherence. Any opinion given lacks evidence or justification. You use language that lacks precision.

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 34

teachings and ideas about human life, the world and ultimate reality

RAG 2

RAG 1

Component 3: Developments in Christian thought - Insight: Beliefs,

Privately studied

Learning Outcomes

Studied in class

H173/3 Developments in Christian thought: Checklist 7

Augustine’s teachings on Human Nature Human relationships pre and post Fall Original Sin and its effects on the will and human societies God’s grace, his generous love, can overcome sin, the rebellious will Critically assess whether Augustine’s teaching on the historical Fall and Original Sin is wrong Critically assess whether Augustine is right that sin means that humans can never be morally good Does Augustine have a pessimistic or optimistic view of human nature Do we have a distinctive human nature? Death and the afterlife Christian teachings on heaven Christian teachings on hell Christian teachings on purgatory Christian teachings on election – who will be saved? Matthew 25:31-46 Does God’s judgement take place immediately after death or the end of time? Can you critically assess whether hell and heaven are eternal? Can you critically assess whether or not heaven is the transformation and perfection of the whole of creation? Can you critically assess whether or not purgatory is a state through which everyone goes? Spiritual resurrection as a dualist concept. Beatific vision. Physical resurrection: John Hick replica theory. Christianity and particular judgement.

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 35

origins and development of Christianity and the sources of wisdom on which it is based.

RAG 2

RAG 1

Component 3: Developments in Christian thought – Foundations: The

Privately studied

Learning Outcomes

Studied in class

H173/3 Developments in Christian thought: Checklist 8

Knowledge of God’s existence: Natural knowledge of God’s existence – As an innate human sense of the divine Natural knowledge of God’s existence – As seen in the order of creation Revealed knowledge of God’s existence – through faith and God’s grace Revealed knowledge of God’s existence – revealed knowledge of God in Jesus Christ Is it possible to know God through reason along? Critically assess whether faith is a sufficient reason for belief in God’s existence Evaluate whether the fall has completely removed all natural human knowledge of God Is natural knowledge of God the same as revealed knowledge of God? Critically assess whether or not belief in God’s existence is sufficient to put one’s trust in him. The person Jesus Christ: Jesus’ authority as the son of God Jesus’ authority as a teacher of wisdom Jesus authority as a liberator Was Jesus only a teacher of wisdom? Was Jesus more than a political liberator? Critically assess whether or not Jesus’ relationship with God was very special or truly unique Did Jesus think that he was divine? Examples of God as creator within the bible: Creatio ex nihilo – Genesis 1, Job 38:142:6, John 1:1-4, Psalm 33:6 God as craftsman: Genesis 2 and 3, Isaiah 29:16, Jeremiah 18:1-6

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 36

ethics and practice: including those that shape and express religious identity

RAG 2

RAG 1

Component 3: Developments in Christian thought – Living: The diversity of

Privately studied

Learning Outcomes

Studied in class

H173/3 Developments in Christian thought: Checklist 9

Christian moral principles. The diversity of Christian moral reasoning and practices and sources of ethics, including; The Bible as the only authority for Christian ethical practices. Bible, Church and reason as the sources of Christian ethical practices Love (agape) as the only Christian ethical principle which governs Christian practices Critically assess whether or not Christian ethics are distinctive Critically assess whether Christian ethics are personal or communal Critically assess whether the Bible is a comprehensive moral guide Christian moral action: The teaching and example of Dietrich Bonhoeffer on the duty to God and duty to State The teaching and example of Dietrich Bonhoeffer on the Church as community and source of spiritual discipline The teaching and example of Dietrich Bonhoeffer on the cost of discipleship Should Christians practise civil disobedience? Is it possible to always know God’s will? Does Bonhoeffer put too much emphasis on suffering? In Bonhoeffer’s theology relevant today?

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 37

Philosophy & Ethics- Reading and Resource List The following books and resources are recommended for background, essays, study, revision and for further reading. Those with an * next to them are “Essential Buys” which you should try to have your own copy of. Philosophy of Religion

OCR Religious Studies A Level Year 1 and AS Michael Wilcockson, Hugh Campbell, Michael Wilkinson- new text book!

*Sophie's World: A Novel About the History of Philosophy [Paperback] Jostein Gaarder ISBN-10: 9781857992915 *OCR Philosophy of Religion for AS & A2 Matthew Taylor (Core text book) Cole, P Philosophy of Religion Hodder & Stoughton (1999) 0-34072491-9 Boethius: Consolations of Philosophy Chapter 5 Hick, J Evil and the God of Love Macmillan (1985 edition) 0-33339483-6 Hick J John Hick Death and Eternal Life ISBN-10: 000215157X. Dawkins Richard: The Selfish Gene ISBN-10: 0199291152 Dawkins, Richard: The God Delusion ISBN-10: 055277331X MacGrath, Alister: The Dawkins Delusion ISBN-10: 0281059276 Raeper, W & Smith, L A Beginner’s Guide to Ideas Lion Publishing (1991) 0745921361 Especially parts 2,6 & 11. Thompson, M Philosophy: An Introduction Hodder & Stoughton (1995) 0-340-64394-3 Chapter 2 on the Philosophy of Religion. * Thompson, M Teach Yourself Philosophy of Religion Hodder & Stoughton (1997) 0-340-68837-8 *Vardy, P The Puzzle of God HarperCollins (1990) 0-00-599223-0

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 38

Religious Ethics

OCR Religious Studies A Level Year 1 and AS Michael Wilcockson, Hugh Campbell, Michael Wilkinson- new text book!

OCR Philosophy of Religion for AS & A2 Matthew Taylor *David Bowie: Ethical Studies ISBN-10: 0748780793 *Singer, P Practical Ethics Cambridge University Press (1993) 052143971X *Vardy, P & Grolsch, P The Puzzle of Ethics (second edition) Fount (1999) 0-00-628144-3 Vardy,P The Puzzle of Sex ISBN-10: 0334042054 Crook, C H An Introduction to Christian Ethics Prentice-Hall (1998) 0130951315 Frame, J M. Medical Ethics Pres. & Ref. Publishing Co. (1998) Geisler, N L Christian Ethics: Options and Issues Apollos (1991) 0-85111-418-0 Lovelock, James: Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth ISBN-10: 0192862189, Norman, R Ethics, Killing and War Cambridge University Press (1995) 0521455537 Norman, R The Moral Philosophers; an Introduction to Ethics Oxford University MacIntyre, Alisdair: After Virtue ISBN-10: 0715636405 Press (1998) 0198752164 * Pojman, L Ethics Wadsworth (1998) 0534551815. Warnock, M An Intelligent Personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Guide to Ethics Duckworth (1998) 0715628410 Chapter 5 only. Walker, Joe: Environmental Ethics ISBN-10: 0340757701 Wolf, M: Why Globalisation Works ISBN-10: 0300107773

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 39

A Level Reference sites http://peped.org/philosophicalinvestigations/ Brilliant resource site where you can access relevant articles, news stories, important chapters from books etc. https://ithinkthereforeiteach.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/upd ated-sow-lets-be-realistic/ Excellent resource site. http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/as-a-level-gce-religiousstudies-h173-h573-from-2016/ Exam board web site- past papers, mark schemes etc http://www.rsrevision.com/contents/index.htm Excellent site http://www.neuroethics.ox.ac.uk/bio-ethics_bites Bio-ethics bites: cutting edge material supported by Oxford Uni with downloadable MP3 audio files. For AS and A2 studies http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/natlaw.html Natural Law and Aquinas http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sex.htm Sex and relationships A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 40

A level Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 41

Philosophy at University Below is a list of University courses in Philosophy, Theology or Religious Studies, drawn up using ucas.com. More universities and courses are available through UCAS.com. Institution

Course

Degree Title

Course Code Length

Offer Tariff Offer Grades

University of Aberdeen

Philosophy and Religious Studies

Master of Arts

VV56

4 years

BBB

Birbeck, University of London

Philosophy

Bachelor of Arts

V500

3 years

AAB

University of Birmingham

Philosophy

Bachelor of Arts

V500

3 years

AAB-ABB incl. P&E

University of Dundee

Philosophy

Master of Arts

V500

4 years

BBB

University of Edinburgh

Philosophy and Theology

Master of Arts

VV56

4 years

AAA

Heythrop, University of London

Abrahamic Religions

Bachelor of Arts

V690

3 years 300-320

BBB-ABB

Heythrop, University of London

Philosophy, Religion and Ethics

Bachelor of Arts

VV56

3 years 300-320

BBB-ABB

Keele University

Philosophy

Bachelor of Arts

V500

3 years

BBB

Lancaster University

Philosophy

Bachelor of Arts

V500

3 years

ABB

Lancaster University**

Ethics, Philosophy and Religion

Bachelor of Arts

VV56

3 years

ABB

Manchester Metropolitan University

Philosophy

Bachelor of Arts

V500

3 years 280

Manchester Metropolitan University

Philosophy and Psychology

Bachelor of Science

VCM8

3 years 300

(BBB) (incl. BTEC)

Oxford Brookes University

Philosophy

Bachelor of Arts

V500

3 years

BBC

University of St Andrews

Philosophy and Theological Studies

Master of Arts

VV56

4 years

AAB

University of St Andrews

Theology (Divinity)

Master of Theology*

V618

4 years

AAA

St Mary’s University College, Twickenham†

Philosophy

Bachelor of Arts

V500

3 years 240

BC + Any AS

St Mary’s University College, Twickenham

Philosophy and Psychology

Bachelor of Arts

CV85

3 years 240

BC + Any AS

University of Southampton

Philosophy

Bachelor of Arts

V500

3 years

AAB

University of Stirling

Philosophy

Bachelor of Arts

V500

4 years

BBC

University of Stirling

Philosophy and Religion

Bachelor of Arts

VV56

4 years

BBC

University of Warwick

Philosophy

Bachelor of Arts

V500

3 years

AAA

**Mr Mc Canny studied Philosophy, Ethics and Anthropology at Lancaster University

AS Philosophy and Ethics Course Handbook

Page 42